In a blatant attempt to overrule Britain’s Parliament, judges at the European Court of Human Rights (echr) ruled on April 12 that Britain must reverse its 140-year-old ban on prisoners voting. The ruling is leading to a showdown between the British government and the echr over who really runs the country.

The court gave Britain six months to change its voting laws. This comes two months after members of Parliament voted not to remove the ban—234 votes to 22.

Britain’s Daily Mail reports that backbench Conservative MPs are pushing for the government to simply ignore the court’s ruling. A leaked government document says the court has no legal powers to force the government to pay compensation to prisoners denied a vote. Other countries have ignored 8,000 echr rulings.

“The Strasbourg Court has triggered a constitutional clash it cannot win—if we stand firm,” said MP Dominic Raab. “We cannot be forced to implement the judgment—senior British judges have made that clear. We cannot be forced to pay compensation, and there is no serious risk of Britain being kicked out of the Council of Europe.”

“Parliament should not and in my view will not back down in this matter,” said former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.

The echr is a thorn in Britain’s side. Analyst Dr. Lee Rotherham estimates that Britain spends around £2.1 billion a year complying with echr judgements—with a total cost to date of £17.3 billion. He also estimates that the “compensation culture” fostered by the courts costs a further £7.1 billion a year. That comes to just under £150 per person in the UK per year.

If anything, Dr. Rotherham says his figures are likely to underestimate the total cost—they don’t include legislation introduced by Parliament designed to comply with the echr but not initiated in direct response to a court ruling. Neither do his figures include the cost of reviewing laws so that they comply with a legal precedent set by a court ruling involving another country.

But perhaps the bigger cost is Britain having to comply with absurd echr rulings. Even soldiers on the battlefield have to change their behavior because of the court. For example, soldiers are told not to fire on an insurgent after he has thrown a hand grenade. They can shoot him before that point, but once he has thrown it, he is unarmed and must not be shot.

The echr also hinders Britain’s efforts in deporting terrorists, violent criminals and illegal immigrants.

The echr is not a body of the European Union. It presides over the 47-member Council of Europe. Nonetheless, Britain standing up for the sovereignty of its Parliament over outside institutions directly relates to the EU. Today, the Conservative Party is talking about defying the echr. Tomorrow it will be prepared to defy the EU.

Opposition to the echr in Britain is part of a growing trend of opposition to foreign rule. If Britain does defy the echr, or even leaves the Council of Europe, how will that affect British attitudes to other European institutions?

As the Trumpet has forecast for many years, Europe is growing toward a unified group of 10 core nations or groups of nations. And, as the Trumpet has also forecast, Britain will not be part of this union. For more information on these trends, see our article “What in the World Is David Cameron Doing?”